AP poll is 1/3 of formula, Coach poll is 1/3, and the average of the 6 computer polls (The Times is out), after dropping the highest and lowest rank is 1/3.

The number of votes is a factor of the rankings. The two human polls use points to determine ranking, so they want the final average to have a point system too.

"A team's score in the AP poll will be divided by 1,625, which is the maximum any team can receive. A team's score in the coaches' poll will be divided by 1,525."

So that means that SOS, losses, and quality wins are all dropped.

Better or worse?

I understand why they dropped SOS, the computer polls already account for that. Plus, if you look at the whole SOS formula, the conference wins and losses all balance out, so basically they're ranking the non-con wins and losses.

Quality wins are basically double dipping as the computers account for the big wins and the voters do too.

Accounting for losses is also double jeopardy as the computers and voters take that into account too.

So the whole thing is now based on polls and computer scoring (which is basically the same as a poll by the person who programmed the computer)? So isn't that basically what we had before the BCS?

I thought the SOS was actually a good factor. Because with the SOS the BCS properly had Florida in the top 15 for a lot of the season while the pollsters did not. So they were not taking into account the strength of schedule.

Quality Wins could be a good thing if they had a better defintion of what a Quality Win is. But their definition of a Quality Win I can do without.

Originally posted by QuezzySo the whole thing is now based on polls and computer scoring (which is basically the same as a poll by the person who programmed the computer)? So isn't that basically what we had before the BCS?

There weren't any computers, and the bowls all had the conference tie-ins when it was the Bowl Alliance.

Originally posted by QuezzyI thought the SOS was actually a good factor. Because with the SOS the BCS properly had Florida in the top 15 for a lot of the season while the pollsters did not. So they were not taking into account the strength of schedule.

Quality Wins could be a good thing if they had a better defintion of what a Quality Win is. But their definition of a Quality Win I can do without.

But as Zeruel said, the computers are ALREADY factoring SOS in, so in effect they were counting it TWICE, which is why Nebraska beat out Oregon in 2001 for the #2 BCS spot despite being ranked #4.

I like this, as they've decided to go with percentage of votes so if there is no clear #2 team the team that gets voted #2 would not have such a big advantage as if they were a unanimous #2. On SI.com Stewart Mandel had an analysis that showed how the polls had Oklahoma as a clear #3, but the computers had them ranked #1 and made what would've been the final BCS ranking much closer, though the Sooners still would've been #3.

Well, my issue with the human polls is that, pretty much every year, it looks something like this:1 - Preseason Top 25 released, with 20-22 teams you already know, and 3 you don't (always in the bottom 10).2 - Rankings don't change, unless a team loses. How far a team drops depends on how high it's been ranked all year (i.e., an 8-0 team that started unranked, was up to 15, then loses, goes down to 23 or so, while same team who's been ranked in the top 5 all year drops to 7).3 - Ultimately, the same few teams that were "favorites" at the beginning of the year are still "favorites," even if they've squeaked out all (or most) of their wins, while a team that wasn't a favorite has dominated their schedule.

Yeah, I'm not that big on the human polls, and certainly don't see what makes them so much better than any other poll. How many games in an 118 team division can any person watch? Especially if they are busy coaching games!

The system works exactly as you described, the only reason USC was 1 last year was they lost first,LSU was 2nd because they lost 2nd, and OK was third because they lost third. But I didn't really see the grave injustice that others saw in OK playing for the National Title. I don't think just because your loss came later on the calendar necessarily makes you the lesser one loss football team.

I didn't think that people saw Oklahoma playing for the national title as an injustice because their loss came last, but rather because they didn't win their conference. Not to mention that in their conference championship game, they were thoroughly destroyed by K-State.

Originally posted by ges7184Yeah, I'm not that big on the human polls, and certainly don't see what makes them so much better than any other poll. How many games in an 118 team division can any person watch? Especially if they are busy coaching games.

This is exactly right. Who decided coaches were the best judges of the best teams? Most coaches haven't even seen most of the other teams. If he's a good coach, he's worrying about coaching his team and looking at film for upcoming games. These coaches will only know the teams in their own conference, so these coaches polls are biased to begin with.

I'm starting to think that the BCS is partially a victim of a bad process of thinking. They're constantly looking for the "quick fix" - the thing that will alleviate the problems they had the year before - without trying to discern a system that'll work on average. I figure if our best option is a system that can get the top 2 teams in college football in the game 17+ times out of 20, then it works. However, with their "What went wrong this year?" mentality, they're creating issues where their process didn't work the one year they tried it.

Are people going to bitch when it fails? Yeah, but they have to keep in mind the overall case.

I agree with you, but when the idea is "the two best teams play for the National Championship" and that hasn't been happening, I don't think tinkering with the system is overreacting.

I'd like to believe they've done this, but what they SHOULD do is go back over the last twenty or so years and hire a Sagarin or whomever and figure out how they could've gotten those 17 out of 20 "#1 vs #2" matchups. SHOW US the 1991 Miami-Washington matchup via your system. SHOW US the 1997 Michigan-Nebraska matchup. Prove that if 2004 doesn't bring a #1 vs. #2 matchup it's a "fluke" and not a "flaw" of the system.

It's all moot anyway. The problem is not the BCS. the problem is, the college football world continues to recognize two national champions, and until that stops, there will *always* be a significant chance of having a split or disputed championship.

Well, yes, playoffs would be a wonderful thing, but I've pretty much given up on college and conference presidents having that much intelligence - and probably more importantly, willing to give up all that money.

Originally posted by TheCowWell, yes, playoffs would be a wonderful thing, but I've pretty much given up on college and conference presidents having that much intelligence - and probably more importantly, willing to give up all that money.

I've heard this argument a jillion times and I just don't get it.

Let's say you have an eight-team playoff, that leaves a whole ton of teams that would have been in bowl games out in the cold, right? Wrong, let them have the bowl games anyhow.

But they won't matter?? Like they matter anyhow. No one cares about all the dumb bowls before New Year's except the fans of each school. Yes, the same fans of each school who will STILL care even if there team is not in the playoff system.

But what about the bowl game sponsors?? Let them stay. That gives you four quarterfinal games, two semifinal games and a championship game that can be sponsored and still even called "The Fiesta Bowl" and "The Rose Bowl." And they can still rotate like they already do.

So, you still have all the shitty bowls with all the shitty teams. Then you have six MORE games that will draw a better audience with the playoffs. And you have a DEFINITIVE champ. All without losing any games, any money, any sponsors. I don't see a bad side of this and wonder why it hasn't happened.

Just because you have a playoff series DOESN'T mean you can't have the rest of the bowl games.

That gives you four quarterfinal games, two semifinal games and a championship game that can be sponsored and still even called "The Fiesta Bowl" and "The Rose Bowl." And they can still rotate like they already do.

The problem here, I think, is that now you're asking fans to potentially shell out for THREE bowl games, (plus hotel, airfare, etc.) instead of just one. And I don't think most fans can do that. Especially when the big BCS bowls are on opposite sides of the country.

Wouldn't creating a national playoff (and the money it creates) cause a major influx of 1-AA teams into 1-A to get a piece of that pie? I mean, to create a "real" college football playoff, wouldn't you have to blow up the whole thing and start over? Not that I'd necessarily be against that...

But what about those classes these student-athletes will miss? How would they ever make up all that classroom time? How would they graduate on time? Oh goodness, we couldn't have that. What's that you say? All the other collegiate sports have playoffs? Oh.

Originally posted by piemanBut what about those classes these student-athletes will miss? How would they ever make up all that classroom time? How would they graduate on time? Oh goodness, we couldn't have that. What's that you say? All the other collegiate sports have playoffs? Oh.

Originally posted by TheCowWell, yes, playoffs would be a wonderful thing, but I've pretty much given up on college and conference presidents having that much intelligence - and probably more importantly, willing to give up all that money.

I think playoffs would be a terrible thing for college football. I think we should just start either ignoring the AP Poll champion or the Coach's Poll champions, or find some other way to only have one national champion that does not involve playoffs.

Playoffs would not eliminate the controversy, it would merely shift it to another area. A field of 64 teams for a football playoff would be too big, as it would take way too long and would likely mean a much shorter regular season. And a field of 8, 16 or 32 teams just means there's an uproar by teams judged to be numbers 9, 17 or 33, respectively.

EDIT: Not to mention, the other college sports with big playoff systems, baseball and basketball, have postseasons that are radically different than their professional counterparts. Both March Madness and the College World Series are played in single games while the MLB and NBA Playoffs are in series. And there are also enough differences in those games to seperate them from the pro ranks. Honestly, if College Football just tried to be like the NFL, I think most people would lose the incentive to watch. The games themselves are very similar to the NFL, with very few differences in rules. So all the NCAA has to distinguish itself is its postseason format.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanI think playoffs would be a terrible thing for college football. I think we should just start either ignoring the AP Poll champion or the Coach's Poll champions, or find some other way to only have one national champion that does not involve playoffs.

Playoffs would not eliminate the controversy, it would merely shift it to another area. A field of 64 teams for a football playoff would be too big, as it would take way too long and would likely mean a much shorter regular season. And a field of 8, 16 or 32 teams just means there's an uproar by teams judged to be numbers 9, 17 or 33, respectively.

And WHO CARES ABOUT #17 or #33?! I could care less! Can you NAME the last bubble team that didn't make the NCAA tournament? Win enough games -> you're in the playoffs. Good enough for me.

I've advocated for a while (click here and scroll to post #6) now a 20-team playoff, with 11 conference champions and 9 at-large teams. It (any true playoff system) would be 18 kinds of awesome, like March Madness, the College World Series, and EVERY OTHER DIVISION of NCAA football.